Hero

No, you have not. You were telling everyone "NO FEATS" For half the thread, and it turned out you were using feats for the Ranger as their only way to get a bonus action attacks/reaction attacks (or else you were confused about how their concentration was already being taken and couldn't be used to cast spells for those things at the same time - which you also never admitted hence bad faith there too). When confronted with this, you never dealt with what had happened - you just hand waived it like it hadn't just happened. That's called bad faith.

I mean your behavior has been patently absurd. You were CORRECTING people when they brought up fighter feats, and scolding them for using feats when you had said no feats, and all along you were using feats for the ranger to give them extra attacks (bonus/reaction).

If that's not bad faith, nothing is. Deal with what happened first if you want people to do anything other than laugh at you. Admit you badly screwed that up, explain why, and explain what you're now using in terms of feats and other stuff to get these "bonus action attack and reaction attack every single round". Or even 50% of the time.

Explorer

I disagree. You presented a paradigm: dueling style, no feats + hunter's mark. We made spreadsheets. They disagreed with you assumption / analysis. You said - what about bonus actions. We said the ranger doesn't get any.

Again, no I didn't. Someone said they couldn't think of how a PC could get Bonus Actions and I listed two: TWF and PAM. That PAM is excluded by my OP is irrelevant; the aim is to concentrate on the figures, not the background or the how. Your own spreadsheets prove my point by mandating the use of Action Surge for damage when Action Surge is not always available and has many other uses. And similarly with Smite damage for the Paladin, BTW.

Hero

No I didn't. I included Bonus Actions right from the start. Go on, look back.

Again, no I didn't. Someone said they couldn't think of how a PC could get Bonus Actions and I listed two: TWF and PAM. That PAM is excluded by my OP is irrelevant; the aim is to concentrate on the figures, not the background or the how. Your own spreadsheets prove my point by mandating the use of Action Surge for damage when Action Surge is not always available and has many other uses. And similarly with Smite damage for the Paladin, BTW.

Oh for the love of... your original scenario COULD NOT USE TWF OR PAM BECAUSE YOU SAID DUELING AND NO FEATS! So WHAT could you have been using to give them a bonus action attack every round in your original scenario? We're over 200 posts in now, and the mystery ability still hasn't been revealed. This is what people mean when they say you're arguing in bad faith - there was NOTHING you were using to get that bonus action. It doesn't exist for that original scenario.

This is also absurd. Of course "how you got there" is relevant. You could just add +100 damage to all Ranger attacks and say "how I got there is irrelevant" if that were the case. If a scenario you propose is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLY UNDER THE RULES that is friggen "relevant" to whether the rules are unbalanced! And you were CORRECTING people when they tried to use feats for the fighter - which is an ability they get that no other class gets (extra feats). You tried to force a "no feats" rule on the thread when you were the one using feats!

Exploree

Ok, added Magic Initiate: Hex to my spreadsheet, and moved Ranger's Hunter's Mark to that section instead of treating it as an always on ability, since the mechanics are largely the same apart from being able to cast it more than once / with higher level slots.

Explorer

Your own spreadsheets prove my point by mandating the use of Action Surge for damage when Action Surge is not always available and has many other uses. And similarly with Smite damage for the Paladin, BTW.

Exploree

Added Hunter's Mark and Vow of Enmity to the Vengeance Paladin (currently the only subclass considered; I suspect it will be the damagest one anyway)

Here's the updated sheet. The Vengeance Paladin has taken a commanding lead, though I think the assumptions I made were generous to them, and conservative for the Battlemaster (currently assumes the only maneuver is distracting strike, and that it is used to fairly anemic effect).

Hero

Added Hunter's Mark and Vow of Enmity to the Vengeance Paladin (currently the only subclass considered; I suspect it will be the damagest one anyway)

Here's the updated sheet. The Vengeance Paladin has taken a commanding lead, though I think the assumptions I made were generous to them, and conservative for the Battlemaster (currently assumes the only maneuver is distracting strike, and that it is used to fairly anemic effect).

Exploree

Yeah, I actually modeled the impact of precision attack awhile back, but it required like, actual coding to get right (as opposed to a spreadsheet), since there's a little weirdness where assuming the average number of near misses yields better damage than you get with either more or fewer. But it's probably useful to plug in a rougher approximation anyway.

The whole point of this thread is that while attacks are balanced across the classes if you only consider the baseline attacks, but once you include bonus attacks and reaction asttacks, the Battlemaster clearly loses. So I do the maths including them. How the PC gets those extra attacks is irrelevant.

Hero

The whole point of this thread is that while attacks are balanced across the classes if you only consider the baseline attacks, but once you include bonus attacks and reaction asttacks, the Battlemaster clearly loses. So I do the maths including them. How the PC gets those extra attacks is irrelevant.

You've had a good half dozen replies to this claim already, which you've mostly ignored, but I will try once again.

It's not irrelevant, because it was impossible to get a bonus attack as a Ranger.

If something is impossible to get, it cannot be part of the baseline. They DO NOT GET a bonus action attack. Period. Your scenario, which you laid out for everyone to see, which you corrected people on multiple times, was impossible.

That is relevant. No matter how many times you simply declare it is irrelevant without an explanation for why it's irrelevant, it's still relevant. Because you cannot assume a baseline which does something impossible under the rules and then declare it the norm.

Now if you are willing to remove the all-day-concentration spell from your assumptions (because that's what is interfering with the ranger's use of spells which can actually grant a bonus action attack) I'd be more willing to listen. But as long as you're including in your baseline something which directly conflicts with that ranger's use of it's abilities to get a bonus action attack, IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT.

And if you're willing to say, "OK I messed up in that initial scenario because I forgot it was a concentration spell or I forgot that a feat was the only way they had to get that bonus action while concentrating on that spell" I'd also listen. Though of course then we need to add back in the fighter feats - which they get more of than the ranger.

But as you've refused to face the question at all, and you just keep fiating over the issue by simply declaring it irrelevant with zero evidence to back up the claim it lacks relevance and a heaping ton of responses demonstrating why it's deeply relevant, it's become difficult to take you seriously. I am starting to suspect you've been trolling us all, because it's like you keep saying "The sky is green - can we stop talking about sky color now because the sky is green because I've said the sky is green which means the sky must be green."